Modern Land Administration; Technical Characteristics

Mohsen KALANTARI, Abbas RJABIFARD and Rohan BENNET, Australia Key words: Cadastre, Future, Modern, Land administration SUMMARY The way land is used is driven by the interplay of social, economic, and environmental factors. To manage land as a precious resource, land management systems are expected to maximise social, economic and environmental benefits for people. Within this framework, land administration plays a critical role in the regulation of land management policies. Land administration systems have historically existed to gather revenue, protect people s rights to land, regulate the land market and control land use. However, land administration systems are now evolving from a focus on the core functions of regulating land use, land tenure and land valuation to an integrated land management paradigm designed to support sustainable development. Changing the role of land administration in a society is not simple. This shift involves many issues relating to the historical, cultural, social, technical and economic situation of the society. It is expected land administration will play a greater social role by contributing to good governance, serving the business sector and enhancing quality of life. This article aims to explain the objectives, functions and characteristics of modern land administration systems. A detailed comparison of current and future land administration systems is presented in this article to identify the technical characteristics of modern land administration. 1/20

Mohsen KALANTARI, Abbas RAJABIFARD, and Rohan BENNET, Australia 1 INTRODUCTION To manage land as a precious resource, land management systems are expected to maximise social, economic and environmental benefits for people. Within this framework, land administration plays a critical role in the regulation of land management policies (Enemark, 2005a). Land administration consists of three types of functions: juridical, regulatory, and fiscal, with land information management integral to all three (Dale and McLaughlin, 1988; Dale and McLaughlin, 1999). Definitions of land administration make it very clear that land administration activity is not an end in itself but facilitates the achievement of other goals (Molen, 2006). The objectives of land administration can generally be classified according to security of tenure, creation of wealth and regulation of land use (Dale and McLaughlin, 1999; Enemark et al., 2005). Land administration systems have historically existed to gather revenue, protect people s rights to land, regulate the land market and control land use. However, land administration systems are now evolving from a focus on the core functions of regulating land use, land tenure and land valuation to an integrated land management paradigm designed to support sustainable development (Enemark et al., 2005). In addition, it is expected land administration will play a greater social role by contributing to good governance (Ting, 2002), serving the business sector (Steudler, 2004a) and enhancing quality of life. Changing the role of land administration in a society is not simple. This shift involves many issues relating to the historical, cultural, social, technical and economic situation of the society (Ting and Williamson, 2000; Williamson, 2001). These issues reveal that current computerised land administration systems are unable to deliver new objectives unless their characteristics are changed. This article aims to explain the objectives, functions and characteristics of future land administration systems. A detailed comparison of current and future land administration systems is presented to identify the technical characteristics of modern land administration. 2 CURRENT LAND ADMINISTRATION Land is the most valuable asset that people hold (FAO and UNEP, 1999a; FAO, 2007). Mankind has diverse interests in land: it is a place to build homes, grow crops and pasture animals for food; a source of raw materials and mineral wealth, and a place for leisure activities. Land is not simply regarded in terms of soils and surface topography, but encompasses features such as underlying deposits, climate and water resources, and supports 2/20

plant and animal communities. Furthermore, the results of human activities, reflected by changes in vegetative cover or structures, are also regarded as features of land (FAO and UNEP, 1999b). The interplay of social, economic, and environmental factors determines the way in which land is used (Williamson, 2006). For instance, global competition puts pressure on land to produce higher financial returns as an economic interest, whilst climate change is adding further pressure as an environmental interest in land. Thus, producers face a significant challenge if they wish to stay in business whilst at the same time protecting the natural environment. To manage land as a precious but complicated resource, land management systems are expected to maximise social, economic and environmental interests, not damaging the land and, where possible, contributing to its enhancement. Land management is about finding the right balance of these triple, often competing, factors that allow sustainable land use (World Bank, 2006). Therefore, to ensure the optimum use of land to enable societies to achieve sustainable development there must be a framework of sustainable land management. Within this framework, land administration plays a critical role to implement the policies adopted in land management (Enemark, 2005b). As today s society faces continuing land shortages and resource scarcity, the imperative exists to better manage and plan land use. The concerns about sustainable development and the environment are evident from such international instruments as Agenda 21 and the Habitat II Agenda. There are also concerns for social equity such as indigenous and women s rights (Ting and Williamson, 1999a; Ting and Williamson, 1999b; Ting et al., 1999; Williamson et al., 1999; Ting and Williamson, 2000; Ting, 2002), taking into account the new social interests in land. Today, thinking has moved beyond giving more people the possibility of having interest in the space over and underneath the same parcel of land through land administration. Traditionally, land administration referred to the processes of determining, recording and disseminating information about the ownership, value and use of land, when implementing land management policies (UNECE, 1996; UNECE, 2005). Within this context, a land administration system is an infrastructure that supports the management of land. The processes of land administration include regulation of land and property development to control the creation of new interests in land, the use and conversion of the land, the gathering of revenue from the land through sales, leasing, and taxation, and the resolution of conflicts concerning the social interests, ownership and use of the land (Dale and McLaughlin, 1988). Land administration facilitates all transaction concerning land, such as land development, and makes such transactions easier and more secure. One consequence of land administration is the stimulation of economic interests in land and land markets. Administrating land provides security and protection for the rightful claimant as well as preserving the interests of society. This security stimulates investment and development, particularly through its contributions to 3/20

the banking system. Land administration reduces disputes and litigation over land resulting in better social and people relationship (Larsson, 1991). 2.1 Attributes of land administration In land administration the three key attributes of land are ownership, value and use. Ownership usually means the exclusive right to use the parcel, enjoy its produce and make improvements (Larsson, 1991). Value refers to the worth of a property (land parcel or building), determined in a variety of ways which give rise to different estimates of the value (UNECE, 2005). Land use is defined as the way land in which land is developed and used; it is classified according to the kinds of activities allowed (agriculture, residences, industries, and so on) (UNECE, 2005). Ownership defines who can use land while, conversely, the use influences the form and substance of the tenure. Similarly, the manner in which land is valued can alter the way in which it is used (Dale and McLaughlin, 1999). There is, therefore, a strong relationship between the three key attributes of land: tenure, use and value. The strong relationship between the attributes should be considered when determining modern land administration requirements. This also applies when designing electronic land administration and developing associated tools. The silo based data model of managing land attributes according to particular interests in land interferes with the proper communication, data exchange and interoperability of land administration systems. It also prevents the integrated management of increasing land interests by keeping them separate. 2.2 Processes in land administration An examination of the definition of land administration reveals three sub-processes: determination, recording and dissemination. The determination process is the identification of an interest in land, the demarcation, measuring and mapping of the interest s boundaries or spatial extent (Larsson, 1991), and the assessment of its value. The recording process includes the checking or examination of the results of the determination process and the entry of the information in land information systems. The dissemination process includes providing the key attributes of land to the public and private users. This process requires an infrastructure, including institutional and technical arrangements, to effectively distribute land information. The way in which main attributes of land (ownership value and use) are determined directly influences how they are recorded in the land administration data models and, consequently, their manner of disseminated. The strong relation between the attributes, therefore, will also show itself in the processes and consequently affect the way electronic land administration operates and a cadastral data model is designed. 3 FUNCTIONS OF LAND ADMINISTRATION 4/20

According to the definition of land administration and the key attributes of land, land administration consists of three functions: juridical (for land tenure), regulatory (for land use), fiscal (for land value) with land information management integral to the three functions (Dale and McLaughlin, 1999). The way in which rights in land are held is called tenure. It is defined by a broad set of rules, some of which are formally defined through law, others determined by custom (Dale and McLaughlin, 1999). In the future, however, land tenure will also describe the manner in which interest (rights, restriction, responsibilities) are held (Bennett et al., 2008). Land valuation is the process of estimating the value of any land or property for the purpose of buying, selling, leasing or taxation. Land-use regulation is the process of allocating resources, especially rights, restrictions, and responsibilities to use land in particular ways, in order to achieve maximum efficiency while respecting the environment and the welfare of the community (UNECE, 2005). The ability to meet the range of land administration functions in the areas of land tenure, land value and land use requires access to complete and up-to-date land information. A key function of land administration is the management of land and property related data through a land information system with the cadastral data model at its centre. For instance, a primary requirement for efficient and effective land valuation is land data that provides an index for compiling and maintaining valuation information. Access to inclusive and integrated information on the interests in land, value and use via a comprehensive data model helps to facilitate achieving the modern electronic land administration (Kalantari et al., 2005a). Various components of land administration communicate to each other, exchanging information in order for the land administration system to perform the functionalities described. The next section explains land administration objectives and how they relate to each other. 4 LAND ADMINISTRATION OBJECTIVES Functions and definitions of land administration make it very clear that land administration activity is not an end in itself but facilitates other goals (Molen, 2006). Land administration systems have historically contributed to gathering revenue, protecting people s rights in land, regulating the land market and controlling land use. According to the functions and attributes of land administration, its objectives can be generally classified according to security of tenure, creation of wealth and the regulation of use. 4.1 Security of Tenure The main objective of a land administration system through the land tenure function is to ensure security of tenure. Securing land rights is particularly relevant to vulnerable groups such as the poor, women and indigenous groups. In most societies, there are many competing interests in land including development, agriculture, pasture, forestry, industry, infrastructure, urbanisation, biodiversity, customary rights, and ecological and environmental protection 5/20

interests. Many countries have great difficulty in balancing the needs of these competing demands. Land has been a cause of social, ethnic, cultural and religious conflict, and revolutions have been fought over rights to land. Throughout history, virtually all civilisations have devoted considerable effort to defining interests in land and establishing institutions to administer this increasing number of interests through land administration systems (Bell, 2005). 4.2 Creation of Wealth Creation of wealth is an important foundation for economic development. Land administration systems have contributed to this through the land valuation function. In a land market, fees and taxes on land are often a significant source of revenue. Many of the interests in land, such as land use rights, development rights, right of way, water rights, mineral and extractive resource rights, carbon rights, timber rights, air rights, view rights, aquaculture rights, marine rights, trade waste rights are now being seen as tradable commodities (Wallace and Williamson, 2004). An efficient system of valuation has always had a significant impact on an efficient land and land related commodities market systems. Furthermore, recognizing that land is a source of wealth lies at the heart of good government and effective public administration. States that prosper promote widespread and secured private ownership of land as a foundation of social and economic policy. "Modern market economies generate growth because widespread formal property rights, registered in a system governed by legal rules, afford indisputable proof of ownership and protection from uncertainty and fraud so permitting massive low cost exchange, fostering specialization and greater productivity. It is law that defines the relationship of rights to people. Civilized living in market economies is not simply due to greater prosperity but to the order that formalized property rights bring." (Hernando de Soto 2000). "Land is the place of all shelter, in the city, the town, the village and the home. It is the source of food, of materials for construction and manufacture, of coal, gas and oil, of springs and rivers and other essentials for life. Indestructible, immovable, it is the foundation of all human activity. Houses and factories, forests and farms, rivers, roads and railways, mines, quarries and reservoirs are all fashioned from the land. It offers endless opportunities for development and discovery. It is the ultimate source of wealth." (based on Sir Charles Fortescue Brickdale 1914). 4.3 Regulatory of Use Land is an asset that is immovable: it is at a fixed location. It is also an asset of both a public and a private nature. The land use regulatory function of land administration aims at optimizing the productive uses of the land. These uses include agriculture, pastures, and the provision of space for housing, commercial and industrial enterprises. Land administration helps to determine how these interests are created and regulated. While the land resource of a country is finite and cannot be expanded, the resource base can be improved upon or it can be 6/20

degraded. It is in countries interests to have their land resources used in a sustainable manner to ensure that the land will remain productive for future generations. Having explored traditional land administration systems in term of objectives, key attributes and functionalities (Table 1), next section looks at the new land administration paradigm and observes whether any change has occurred within attributes, functions, components and objectives of land administration. Land data elements processes Functions Components Administration Land tenure Land registry Ownership Determination Land value Land valuation Traditional Use Recording Land use Land mapping Value Disseminating regulatory Land development Table 1: Traditional land administration, data elements and processes, functions and components 5 MODERN LAND ADMINISTRATION Land administration systems are evolving from a focus on the core functions of regulating land use, land tenure and land valuation to an integrated land management paradigm designed to support sustainable development (Enemark, 2005b). The paradigm includes three components for land management in a specific country context: land policy framework, land administration functions and spatial or land information infrastructures (Figure 1). Land information infrastructure, in particular, plays an important role by providing integrated and interoperable land information systems. Within the information system, the way in which land related data, including interests and their spatial extension, are modelled should also be taken into account. The paradigm proposes four functionalities for a land administration system: land tenure, land value, land use and land development. The three first functions are similar to those in traditional ways of administrating land while the fourth function is included to take up new opportunities for integrated land management. 7/20

E-Government E-Citizenship Figure 1: The land management paradigm (Enemark et al., 2005) In addition to the main goal of the paradigm, contributing to sustainability through land administration, land administration is expected to play a broader social role; contributing to good governance, facilitating activities and providing service to business, and enhancing quality of life with the spatial data infrastructure central to it (Figure 2). Good Governance Tenure Use Service to Businesses Spatial Data Infrastructure Enhancing Quality of Life Value Development Sustainable Development Figure 2: New roles for land administration 5.1 Land Administration and Good governance Good governance allows governing bodies to implement and run effective land administration. Good governance has 8 major characteristics (ESCAP et al., 2007). It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive, and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimised, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society. 8/20

A consensus oriented land administration can enhance the participation of all members of a society through securing both women s and men s interests in land. For instance, given women's centrality to diversified livelihoods, and their increasing political agency, their interests in land (both as wives/daughters within male dominated households and as members of vulnerable social classes and communities that face the risk of land alienation) are more politicised today as well as being more contested (Razavi, 2003). With the deceleration of more formal forms of employment, the diversification of rural livelihoods, and the intensification of casual labour in agriculture and the informal sector, the land question has taken on a new urgency and needs to be answered in land administration. A transparent land administration system can enforce the rule of law and accountability. Responsive land development can increase efficiency and effectiveness of governance. In an integrated and interoperable environment like e-land administration, with a proper data arrangement land administration subsystems can contribute to better governance in a society. 5.2 Land administration and Service to Business Land administration has not traditionally offered many services for businesses, but the land information management function and spatial data infrastructures and their relationship with land administration is changing the field. Private and public businesses, such as building inspection, transportation planning and management, emergency response, waste management and disposal, protected area designation, monitoring of parks and open space, infrastructure management, and public utilities can be assisted by the provision of comprehensive land related data and interoperable communication among the land administration agencies. Forest fires, foot-and-mouth disease devastating livestock, the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) all of these disasters have at least one thing in common: the role played by land information to help authorities make crucial decisions. The US Department of Labour identified land information technology as one of the three most important emerging and evolving fields, along with nanotechnology and biotechnology. Job opportunities are growing and diversifying as geospatial technologies prove their value in ever more areas (Gewin, 2004). 5.3 Land administration and Quality of Life Quality of life is an elusive concept approachable at varying levels of generality from the assessment of societal or community wellbeing to the specific evaluation of the situations of individuals or groups (Felce and Perry, 1995). Quality of life is defined basically as a constellation of components which can consist of objective living conditions and/or of subjectively perceived wellbeing. The objective living conditions are usually monitored by experts from the social and natural sciences; these objective conditions exist independent of the awareness of the population exposed to them. 9/20

Their range may vary from personal conditions through the community domain to the world s environmental conditions (Glatzer and Mohr, 1987). Quality of life, by almost any definition, is important to people. In land administration context it is applied to the relationship between people and public land management (Razavi, 2003). Land administration systems, therefore, are a tool of great inherent potential for better living management. For instance, the attributes of land offered by land administration are directly applicable to an understanding of the spatial variation of disease and its relationship to environmental factors and the health care system. In summary, the largest benefit of a land administration system is the availability of comprehensive land information to the citizens through integrated land information systems and data models, and the ease by which they can access this information through e-land administration. Parents sending their children to universities can access crime statistics about a specific area where they are thinking of leasing or purchasing property. Developers and engineers can access zoning type, building setbacks, minimum lot areas, and property ownership, through the Internet. Real estate agencies can access appraised value information on properties they are looking to list, or investors can get ownership information on properties they want to purchase. Citizens can see what precinct they need to vote in as well as their polling location, what amenities a certain park has, or find a dearly departed relative in the city cemetery. They can find out when their rubbish pickup or recycling day is or what year the historic home across the street was built. It can be seen from above, that the evolution of land administration system follows its changing role in societies rather than its change of functionalities (Figure 2). The functionalities described for land administration remain with the addition of extra roles. Land tenure, land use, land value and land development, together with land information management, can contribute to good governance. An open land registry, for instance, means that land information is freely available and directly accessible to the participants of the society. It also means that comprehensive and integrated information is provided by the land information management and that it is provided in interoperable forms and media. Good governance also requires that land administration institutions and processes try to serve all clients within a reasonable timeframe primarily through all time available media such as internet based land administration systems. Land administration also requires a broad and long-term perspective of what is needed for businesses and how to provide appropriate services. This can only result from an understanding of the historical, cultural and social contexts of a given society or community. Land information management, with cadastral data modelling at its core, can enhance institutional and technical arrangements, enable better communication among the land administration functions, and thus provide better service to business. Furthermore, wellbeing in a society depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in access to land, can have interests in, and do not feel excluded from the 10/20

mainstream of society. This requires that all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain individual well being by access to land administration services such as e-conveyancing, e-plan of subdivisions and e-land taxation. The above discussion demonstrates how modern land administration can potentially contribute to good governance, service to business and quality of life. Very few countries and societies have come close to using the potential of land administration in this way. However the new roles for land administration are challenging tasks. The next section discusses technical issues with regard to changing role of land administration. 6 TECHNICAL ISSUES OF MODERN LAND ADMINISTRATION Changing the role of land administration in a society is not straightforward. Many issues are involved in this shift relating to historical, cultural, social, technical and economic conditions. Different societies face different issues. For instance, countries with informal and customary rules will face different issues to those in post conflict situations. The technical requirements of a changing land administration system for developed countries are different to those of developing countries. However, this section investigates the technical issues. 11/20

6.1 Interoperability Land administration systems in developed countries and in some of the developing countries have utilised ICT in order to achieve e-land administration. Many implemented their electronic and computerised systems between ten and twenty years ago. Those systems are now outdated, and the maintenance is complex and expensive. (Blaikie, 2003; Bruggemann, 2003; Dijkstra T. and Booij A.S., 2003; Hawerk, 2003; Hoffmann, 2003; Ljunggren, 2003; Meadows and Formby, 2003; Mladenovic, 2003; Molen and Lemmen, 2003; Onsrud, 2003; Sanz, 2003; Selleri and Fabrizi, 2003; SuchanekI and Jirman, 2003; Vahala, 2003) The land administration systems are increasingly being confronted with rapid development in technology, internet, databases, modelling standards, open systems as well as growing demands for new services, enhanced user requirements, e- governance. e-land administration systems, including the information system and data models they use, should be able to adapt themselves with the fast pacing innovations. This in particular requires a proper maintenance regime for e-land administration components such as cadastral data models when designing and developing. In addition, because enablement of land administration with ICT was undertaken so long ago, it has happened individually by subsystems or even departments in a subsystem without considering other subsystems. Existing initiatives include providing land information on line, electronic conveyancing, and electronic subdivisions. Thus far, the implementation of these initiatives is isolated in their specific components without reference to the broader land administration system or its core policy. Communication among the components needs interoperability. Without interoperability between the components, e-land administration, and e-government cannot be achieved (Kalantari et al., 2005b). Different components of land administration have developed their own computerised system without paying enough attention to the objectives of the entire land administration system. Consequently, one of the big problems in ICT enablement, computerising and having interoperability in e-land administration, is the lack of standards. The need for standardisation has been discussed in various literature (Astke et al., 2004; Bjornsson, 2004; Hecht, 2004; Kaufmann, 2004; Oosterom et al., 2004; Ottens, 2004; Paasch, 2004; Steudler, 2004b; Stubkjaer, 2004; Wallace and Williamson, 2004; Zevenbergen, 2004). International standardisation could resolve many of these communication and interoperability problems. There are several motivations for interoperability, such as meaningful exchange of information between organisations, and efficient component-based system development through applying standardised models. Interoperability is now becoming a serious issue as most land administration activities have been computerised. Competition among technology providers presents new challenges. A variety of solutions for the same problem bring diversity in the technologies that are used. This issue in particular can be observed within different organisations. Interoperability is not a big issue until the need for communication, data exchange, data sharing become of interest. 12/20

6.2 Increasing Number of Interests in Land Property rights are managed well by modern economies. They are supported both theoretically and administratively by a framework of legal and economic theory and sophisticated registration systems. But the current literature on cadastral and land administration issues replaces rights with the three R s of Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities (Lemmen et al., 2005). In contrast to the rights, the restrictions and responsibilities imposed on land users in support of sustainable development are not well managed (Bennett et al., 2008). They lack theoretical support, administrative coherence and basic information systems. Land administration literature now suggests that all rights, restrictions and responsibilities (RRRs) should be included in the land administration system (Bennett et al., 2006). In a modern context the key questions then are how new interests and RRRs might be incorporated into a cadastral fabric, especially when they are remote from physical objects or even spatial identification (Wallace and Williamson, 2004). RRRs or interests in land have historically been organised through land parcels as the basic building block of land administration systems. As a result, governments are trying to manage new commodities and interests in land through this traditional basic building block. However, land parcels are not sufficiently flexible to accommodate or support the growing number of complex commodities (e.g. water, biota, mining rights, and carbon credits) and other interests (e.g. environmental, heritage, use restrictions) in land (Kalantari et al., 2008). For instance, the increasing complexity of modern cities suggests that modern land administration systems need an improved capacity to manage the third dimension of height (Zlatanova and Stoter, 2006). From a land resource management perspective, the definition and identification of land parcels remains fundamentally important, however, the parcel is not the only unit essential for effective land management. Spatial identification of interests requires more flexible objects. Having explored the changing role of land administration and associated technical issues, technical characteristics of modern land administration to address the above issues are introduced in the next section. 7 TECHNICAL CHARACTRISTICS OF MODERN LAND ADMINISTRATION Modern land administration involves processes of contributing to sustainable development as a primary aim and also helping with good governance, service to business and enhancement of quality of life through the land tenure, land value, land use and land development functions. While land administration systems were traditionally designed to provide security of tenure, to create wealth and control land use, today they are expected to contribute far more. Issues described in previous section clarify the inability of current land administration systems to deliver new objectives unless their characteristics are changed. 13/20

Most land administration systems do not recognise the new interests in land such as informal and customary rights, water rights, biota rights, and noise restrictions. This hinders the equity and inclusiveness in good governance. Modern land administration is expected to bring more interests into play. In a modern context the key questions are how new unbundled interests in land imposed by governments might be incorporated into cadastral information systems. In future, the parcel based organisation of interests in land must be refined as new interests such as biota, carbon, and water have different technical characteristics. Parcel based indexing of interests in land cannot accommodate interests that are not necessarily equivalent to the extent of land parcels. Consequently, land information management will play a greater role in modern land administration systems by utilising the powered spatially enablement and using potential of information and communication technologies. However, many ICT based land administration systems are now outdated, and the maintenance of these systems is complex and expensive. Modern land administration requires a comprehensive view on the utilisation of ICT. ICT should not be used in an isolated manner in each of the components and should be holistically and dynamically instilled into land administration components, so that they can communicate with each other in an efficient and cost effective manner and remain up to date. Standardisation and interoperability are therefore serious issues to be considered when establishing an e-land administration system in the context of modern land administration. In this way ICT is central to development of e-land administration. Table 2 juxtaposes the characteristics of modern land administration against those of current land administration. Current Land Administration Modern Land Administration Objectives Tenure Security Wealth Creation Use Regularity Good Governance (Tenure Security, ) Support Sustainable Development (Wealth Creation, Use Regularity, ) Enhancing Quality of Life Service to Businesses Characteristics Parcel Based Limited Bundled Interest ICT Enabled Isolated Processes Parcel Based Indexing Private Interests Object Based Broader Independent Interests e-land Administration Spatially Enabled Land Administration Public and Private Interests Table 2: Comparison between current land administration and modern land administration 8 CONCLUSION Land administration systems are faced with change, and are now expected to contribute not only to the sustainable development of a society, but also to good governance, enhanced quality of life and service to business. The evolution of land administration systems is more about changing the roles they play in a society rather than changing the functions they perform. This article identified the issues associated with the change and classified them according to interoperability and increasing number of interests in land. It then concluded that the changing role of land administration is revolutionising its technical characteristics. In light 14/20

of ICT, modern land administration should be object based not parcel based, spatially enabled and inclusive in terms of both public and private interests. More importantly isolated ICT enablement should be replaced by the interoperable e-land administration. 15/20

REFERENCES Astke, H., G. Mulholland and R. Nyarady (2004). Profile Definition for a Standardized Cadastral Model. Joint FIG Commission 7 and COST Action G9 Workshop on Standardization in the Cadastral Domain, Bamberg, Germany. Bell, K. C. (2005). Land Administration and Management: The Need for Innovative Approaches to Land Policy and Tenure Security. Expert Group Meeting on secure land tenure:new legal framework and tool, UNESCAP in Bangkok, Thailand Bennett, R., J. Wallace and I. Williamson (2006). Managing rights, restrictions and responsibilities affecting land. Combined 5th Trans Tasman Survey Conference & 2nd Queensland Spatial Industry Conference 2006,Land and Sea Spatially Connected, In A Tropical Hub, Cairns. Bennett, R., I. Williamson and J. Wallace (2008).Organising land information for sustainable land administration. Land Use Policy 25(1): 126-138. Bjornsson, C. (2004). Cadastre 2014, From vision to GIS. Joint FIG Commission 7 and COST Action G9 Workshop on Standardization in the Cadastral Domain, Bamberg, Germany. Blaikie, D. (2003). IT strategy and vision in registers of Scotland- Delivering the enabling technology. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Britton, W. and K. Davies (1980). Modern Methods of Valuation of Land, Houses and Buildings, Estates Gazette. Bruggemann, H. (2003). GEOBASIS.NRW and GDI NRW- Interoperable e-government and e-business solution with basic geo-data. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Dale, P. F. and J. D. McLaughlin (1988). Land information management : an introduction with special reference to cadastral problems in Third World countries. Oxford [England] Oxford ; New York, Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press. Dale, P. F. and J. D. McLaughlin (1999). Land administration. New York, Oxford University Press. Dijkstra T. and Booij A.S. (2003). Renewal of automated information systems at the Netherlands cadastre and land registry agency. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Enemark, S. (2005a). The Land Management Paradigm for Institutional Development. the Expert Group Meeting, Melbourne, Australia,, Department of Geomatics, The University of Melbourne. Enemark, S. (2005b). The Land Management Paradigm for Institutional Development. Expert group meeting on incorporating sustainable development objectives into ICT enabled land administration systems, Melbourne, Australia. Enemark, S., I. Williamson and J. Wallace (2005).Building Modern Land Administration Systems in Developed Economies. Journal of Spatial Science, 2005 50(2): 51-68. 16/20

ESCAP, UNDP and ADB (2007). Access to basic services, the impotance of good governance United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Asian Development Bank (ADB). FAO (2007). Good governance in land tenure and administration. Rome, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS. FAO and UNEP (1999a). The Future of Our Land, Facing the Challenge. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization. FAO and UNEP (1999b). The Future of Our Land, Facing the Challenge, Guidelines for Integrated Planning for Sustainable Management of Land Resources. Rome, FAO. Felce, D. and J. Perry (1995).Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Research in development disabilities 16(1): 51-74. FIG. (1995). "FIG statement on cadastre." Retrieved July, 2005, from http://www.fig7.org.uk/publications/cadastre/statement_on_cadastre.html. FIG (1996). The Bogor Declaration, United Nations Interregional Meeting of Experts on the Cadastre, UN-FIG. Gewin, V. (2004).Mapping opportunities. Nature, International weekly journal of science opportunities(427): 376-377. Glatzer, W. and H.-M. Mohr (1987).Quality of life: concepts and measurement. Social Indicator research 15. Hawerk, W. (2003). IT renewal startegy for land registry and cadastre in Europe. Strategies for renewal of information systems and information technology for land registry and cadastre, ITC, The Netherlands, FIG. Hecht, L. (2004). Observations on the Proposed Standardized Cadastre Domain Model, Where Do We Go From Here? Joint FIG Commission 7 and COST Action G9 Workshop on Standardization in the Cadastral Domain, Bamberg, Germany. Hoffmann, W. (2003). Going digital to fulfil customer needs BEVs efforts streamlining the supply chan with information technology. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Kalantari, M., A. Rajabifard, J. Wallace and I. Williamson (2005a).The Role of Cadastral Data Modeling in e-land Administration. Coordinates 1(4): 26-29. Kalantari, M., A. Rajabifard, J. Wallace and I. Williamson (2008).Spatially referenced legal property objects. land Use policy 25: 173-183. Kalantari, M., A. Rajabifard, J. Wallas and I. Williamson (2005b). Toward e-land Administration: Evaluating Australian Online Services. SSC 2005 Spatial Intelligence, Innovation and Praxis: The national biennial Conference of the Spatial Sciences Institute, Melbourne. Kaufmann, J. (2004). Assessment of the Core Cadastral Domain Model from a Cadastre 2014 point of view. Joint FIG Commission 7 and COST Action G9 Workshop on Standardization in the Cadastral Domain, Bamberg, Germany. Larsson, G. (1991). Land registration and cadastral systems. Edinburg, England, Addison Wesley Longman Limited. Lemmen, C., P. V. Oosterom, J. Zevenbergen, W. Quak and P. V. D. Molen (2005). Further Progress in the Development of the Core Cadastral Domain Model. FIG Working Week 2005 and GSDI-8, Cairo, Egypt 17/20

Ljunggren, T. (2003). IT-renewal strategy Lantmateriet (National Land Survey of Sweden). Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. McLaughlin, J. and S. Nichols (1989).Resource management: the land administration andcadastral systems component. Surveying and Mapping 2: 77-85. Meadows, J. and J. Formby (2003). The experience of HM land registry England and Wales..., IT renewal during a period of unprecendented change. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Mladenovic, U. (2003). Slovenian surveying and mapping authority from the IT perpective. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Molen, P. v. d. (2006). Unconventional approaches to land administration. Sessions ITC lustrum conference, spatial information for civil society, Enschede, The Netherlands, ITC. Molen, P. v. d. and C. Lemmen (2003). Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Onsrud, H. (2003). Renewing the IT systems for cadastre and the land register in Norway. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Oosterom, P. v., C. Lemmen and P. V. D. Molen (2004). Remarks and Observations related to the further development of the Core Cadastral Domain Model. Joint FIG Commission 7 and COST Action G9 Workshop on Standardisation in the Cadastral Domain, Bamberg, Germany. Ottens, M. (2004). The Cadastral System as a Socio-Technical System. Joint FIG Commission 7 and COST Action G9 Workshop on Standardization in the Cadastral Domain, Bamberg, Germany. Paasch, J. M. (2004). A Legal Cadastral Domain Model. Joint FIG Commission 7 and COST Action G9 Workshop on Standardization in the Cadastral Domain, Bamberg, Germany. Razavi, S. (2003). Agrarian Change, Gender and Land Rights Oxford, UK, Wiley-Blackwell Sanz, P. P. (2003). Spanish cadastral information system- Current status and IT renovation strategy. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Selleri, M. and C. Fabrizi (2003). The role of ICT in the devolution of cadastral service. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Steudler, D. (2004a). Modern Trends in Land Administration. International FIG seminar Innsbruck Austria. Steudler, D. (2004b). Swiss Cadastral Core Data Model- Experience of the last 15 years. Joint FIG Commission 7 and COST Action G9 Workshop on Standardisation in the Cadastral Domain, Bamberg, Germany. Stubkjaer, E. (2004). Cadastral Modeling - Grasping the objectives. Joint FIG Commission 7 and COST Action G9 Workshop on Standardization in the Cadastral Domain, Bamberg, Germany. 18/20

SuchanekI, V. and J. Jirman (2003). Information system of the cadastre of real estate of the Czech Republic. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Ting, L. (2002). Principles for an Integrated Land Administration System to Support Sustainable Development Dept of Geomatics, Uni of Melbourne.PhD Ting, L. and I. Williamson (1999a).Cadastral Trends: A Synthesis. The Australian Surveyor 4(1): 46-54. Ting, L. and I. Williamson (1999b). Land Administration and Cadastral Trends: The Impact of the Changing Humankind-Land Relationship and Major Global Drivers. Technical Papers of UN-FIG International Conference on Land Tenure and Cadastral Infrastructures for Sustainable Development, Melbourne, Australia. Ting, L. and I. Williamson (2000). Spatial Data Infrastructures and Good Governance: Frameworks for Land Administration Reform to support Sustainable Development. 4th Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Conference, Cape Town, South Africa. Ting, L., I. Williamson, D. Garnt and M. Park (1999).Understanding the Evolution of Land Administration Systems in Some Common Law Countries Survey Review 35(272): 83-102. UNECE (1996). Land Administration Guidlines with Special Reference to Countries in Transition. E. C. F. EUROPE. Geneva, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: 112. UNECE (2005). Land administration in the UNECE region, development trends and main principles U. I. Service. Geneva, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe: 112. Vahala, M. (2003). The Finish developing strategy for land registry and cadastre. Strategies for Renewal of Information Systems and Information Technology for Land Registry and Cadastre, Symposium held by FIG Commission 7 ITC, The Netherlands. Wallace, J. and I. Williamson (2004). Developing Cadastres to Service Complex Property Markets. Joint FIG Commission 7 and COST Action G9 Workshop on Standardisation in the Cadastral Domain, Bamberg, Germany. Wallace, J. and I. Williamson (2006).Building Land Markets. Land Use Policy 23(2): 123-135. Williamson, I. (2006). Global Challenges for Land Administration and Sustainable Development Invited paper for Towards a 2015 Vision of Land' Conference Taipei,Taiwan. Williamson, I., S. Enemark and J. Wallace (2005). Sustainability and Land Administration Systems. Melbourne, Australia, Department of Geomatics, The University of Melbourne. Williamson, I., L. Ting and D. Grant (1999).The Evolving Role of Land Administration in Support of Sustainable Development., The Australian Surveyor 4(2): 126-135. Williamson, I. and J. Wallace (2007). Building New Markets in the Asia Pacific Region. International Workshop on Good Land Administration and its Role in Economic Development,, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. Williamson, I. P. (2001). The Evolution of Modern Cadastres. New Technology for a New Century Conference, FWW2001 CD-ROM Seoul, South Korea. World Bank (2006). Sustainable land management Washington, The international bank for reconstruction and development. 19/20

Zevenbergen, J. (2004). Expanding the Legal/Administrative Package of the Cadastral Domain Model from Grey to Yellow? Joint FIG Commission 7 and COST Action G9 Workshop on Standardisation in the Cadastral Domain, Bamberg, Germany. Zlatanova, S. and J. Stoter (2006). The role of DBMS in the new generation GIS architecture. Frontiers of geographic information technology. S. Rana and J. Sharma. Berlin, Springer: 329. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES Mohsen Kalantari started his role as research fellow working on spatial metadata automation at the Centre for SDIs and Land Administration, the University of Melbourne. He was previously involved in the CRC project for the assessment of metadata entry tools and their fitness for ANZLIC requirements. Mohsen currently is also the eplan project coordinator at Land Victoria, Department of suitability and Environment, Victoria and is a member of the ICSM eplan working group. He finished his PhD from the University of Melbourne in 2008. Mohsen has a bachelor degree in surveying engineering and master degree in GIS engineering. CONTACTS Mohsen Kalantari Centre for SDIs and Land Administration, the University of Melbourne Department of Geomatics, the University of Melbourne Victoria 3010 Australia Tel. +61383443427 Fax + 61393472916 Email: saeidks@unimelb.edu.au Web site: http://csdila.unimelb.edu.au/people/rteam/mohsen.html 20/20